Tropea v. Tropea - 87 N.Y.2d 727, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 (1996)

Rule:

In all cases involving a parent's relocation request, the courts are free to consider and give appropriate weight to all of the factors that may be relevant to the determination. These factors include, but are certainly not limited to each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move; the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents; the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent; the degree to which the custodial parent's and child's life may be enhanced economically, emotionally, and educationally by the move; and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements. In the end, it is for the court to determine, based on all of the proof, whether it has been established by a preponderance of the evidence that a proposed relocation would serve the child's best interests.

Facts:

In each of these appeals, a divorced spouse who was previously granted custody of the couple's minor offspring seeks permission to move away from the area in which the noncustodial spouse resides. Both noncustodial spouses oppose the move, contending that it would significantly reduce the access to the children that they now enjoy. Their respective appeals from the Appellate Division order and the Family Court judgment authorizing the requested moves raise significant questions regarding the scope and nature of the inquiry that should be made in cases where a custodial parent proposes to relocate and seeks judicial approval of the relocation plan.

Issue:

Was it established by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocations would serve the children’s best interests?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court rejected the three-tiered inquiry that had developed through state case law and formulated a new standard based on the child's best interest. Under the new standard, the applicable burden of proof was a preponderance of the evidence and the factors for consideration included, but were not limited to (1) each parent's reasons for seeking or opposing the move, (2) the quality of the relationships between the child and the parents, (3) the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child's future contact with the noncustodial parent, (4) the degree to which the custodial parent's and child's life was enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and (5) the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements.